NPR

Go-between paid £21m in taxpayer funds for NHS PPE

A Spanish businessman who acted as a go-between to secure protective garments for NHS staff in the coronavirus pandemic was paid $28m (£21m) in UK taxpayer cash.

The consultant had been in line for a further $20m of UK public funds, documents filed in a US court reveal.

The legal papers also reveal the American supplier of the PPE called the deals "lucrative".

The Department for Health was asked for comment but did not respond in time.

A legal dispute playing out in the courts in Miami has helped shine a light on the amount of money some companies have made supplying the NHS with equipment to protect staff from Covid infection.

Earlier this year, as the coronavirus pandemic was spreading rapidly around the world, Florida-based jewellery designer Michael Saiger set up a business to supply PPE to governments.

He used his experience of working with factories in China to land what are described as "a number of lucrative contracts" supplying protective gloves and gowns to the NHS.

Mr Saiger signed up a Spanish businessman, Gabriel Gonzalez Andersson, to help with "procurement, logistics, due diligence, product sourcing and quality control" of the PPE equipment. In effect, Mr Andersson was expected to find a manufacturer for deals that had already been done.
...

'Huge profits'
Alongside the legal dispute in Florida, the deals are set to be challenged in UK courts, by campaign group the Good Law Project. It accuses government ministers of not paying "sufficient regard" to tax-payers' money over a contract with the firm.

"We do not understand why, as late as June, government was still making direct awards of contracts sufficiently lucrative as to enable these sorts of profits to be made," Jolyon Maugham, the project's director told the BBC.

"The real criticism that is to be made here is of the huge profits that government allows to be generated."

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:07 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:12 pm The biggest difference between this vaccine development schedule and a typical vaccine has been the very initial stages - precisely because new tech, whether the mRNA approach or the OXxford type - have enabled us to accurately produce a highly targeted functioning vaccine without the years of trial and error that has gone into the more traditional vaccine development programmes. After that, consolidating the Phase I/II and II/III has helped a lot, as has SCALE - a typical phase III programme would maybe have only 3,000 candidates, and therefore would take much longer for sufficient evidence of effectiveness to appear (it helps also that there's a LOT of Coronavirus around, so there's a high baseline to compare against)

Phase IV will continue post approval, but that's typical for most vaccines, as that involves long term study of immunity.

So, we short circuited the initial development cycle by years, but that merely got us to candidates. We've collapsed the testing programme by a year or 2 by running different phases at the same time, but the cumulative amount of time spent in testing is pretty much in line with other vaccines.

Is there confidence that a wide enough variance of testing participants has been found? Old, young, fat, active, cross reactions with other drugs etc ?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:07 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:12 pm The biggest difference between this vaccine development schedule and a typical vaccine has been the very initial stages - precisely because new tech, whether the mRNA approach or the OXxford type - have enabled us to accurately produce a highly targeted functioning vaccine without the years of trial and error that has gone into the more traditional vaccine development programmes. After that, consolidating the Phase I/II and II/III has helped a lot, as has SCALE - a typical phase III programme would maybe have only 3,000 candidates, and therefore would take much longer for sufficient evidence of effectiveness to appear (it helps also that there's a LOT of Coronavirus around, so there's a high baseline to compare against)

Phase IV will continue post approval, but that's typical for most vaccines, as that involves long term study of immunity.

So, we short circuited the initial development cycle by years, but that merely got us to candidates. We've collapsed the testing programme by a year or 2 by running different phases at the same time, but the cumulative amount of time spent in testing is pretty much in line with other vaccines.

Is there confidence that a wide enough variance of testing participants has been found? Old, young, fat, active, cross reactions with other drugs etc ?

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:04 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:07 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 12:12 pm The biggest difference between this vaccine development schedule and a typical vaccine has been the very initial stages - precisely because new tech, whether the mRNA approach or the OXxford type - have enabled us to accurately produce a highly targeted functioning vaccine without the years of trial and error that has gone into the more traditional vaccine development programmes. After that, consolidating the Phase I/II and II/III has helped a lot, as has SCALE - a typical phase III programme would maybe have only 3,000 candidates, and therefore would take much longer for sufficient evidence of effectiveness to appear (it helps also that there's a LOT of Coronavirus around, so there's a high baseline to compare against)

Phase IV will continue post approval, but that's typical for most vaccines, as that involves long term study of immunity.

So, we short circuited the initial development cycle by years, but that merely got us to candidates. We've collapsed the testing programme by a year or 2 by running different phases at the same time, but the cumulative amount of time spent in testing is pretty much in line with other vaccines.

Is there confidence that a wide enough variance of testing participants has been found? Old, young, fat, active, cross reactions with other drugs etc ?

More confidence in the researchers doing the testing than a thick twat on a rugby chat bored trying to suggest experienced medical researchers can't carry out robust medical trials or that those doing the peer reviews etc don't have a clue what they are doing! I think you are on the wrong site here mate .... where is it that Trump supporters chat about election fraud, 5G masts and microchips in the vaccines? I suggest you seek a mid season transfer to there.

The safety data will show all that when published (which is required for even emergency approval) - but in short, yes. Looking at the Pfizer participants, there's a VERY wide range of ages, specifically people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, asthma, high BMI etc. There's probably more than you would usually find due to the larger than normal size of the trial group.

Flockwitt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:38 pm Doesn't look like it'll come fast enough for the USA. They're going to be running at plus 1000 deaths a day next week with no end in sight

FFS, I've just realized Thanksgiving is next week also. The we don't give a shit crowd will be travelling all over the country

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:00 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:00 pm

Prof Gabriel Scally, a visiting professor of public health of the University of Bristol and a member of the Independent Sage group of experts, said he had little hope that the latest lockdown will quash the spread of the virus, given the spring lockdown had little effect in reducing infection levels in some parts of England.

“We know that the [last] and even more severe lockdown did not get the virus under control, so how can we expect that this will bring the virus under control given that some things have not changed?” he argued.

“How can we be in a good place by Christmas? I think it is impossible,”

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:09 pm I thought LF tests were only being given to those with no symptoms.

Amazingly, less people are showing positive

Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:09 pm I thought LF tests were only being given to those with no symptoms.

Amazingly, less people are showing positive

Correct
A PCR is used to confirm a positive case
It's a weapon against the virus. You find about 50% of cases but you can also find the contacts of those positive and hopefully reduce even more transmission. It should drive the r rate down

Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:09 pm I thought LF tests were only being given to those with no symptoms.

Amazingly, less people are showing positive

Correct
A PCR is used to confirm a positive case
It's a weapon against the virus. You find about 50% of cases but you can also find the contacts of those positive and hopefully reduce even more transmission. It should drive the r rate down

JPNZ wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:07 pm Really feel for the UK posters who look like they will be having a lockdown Christmas this year. That Dec 2nd date will surely be extended on current numbers.

Prof Gabriel Scally, a visiting professor of public health of the University of Bristol and a member of the Independent Sage group of experts, said he had little hope that the latest lockdown will quash the spread of the virus, given the spring lockdown had little effect in reducing infection levels in some parts of England.

“We know that the [last] and even more severe lockdown did not get the virus under control, so how can we expect that this will bring the virus under control given that some things have not changed?” he argued.

“How can we be in a good place by Christmas? I think it is impossible,”

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:36 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:09 pm I thought LF tests were only being given to those with no symptoms.

Amazingly, less people are showing positive

Correct
A PCR is used to confirm a positive case
It's a weapon against the virus. You find about 50% of cases but you can also find the contacts of those positive and hopefully reduce even more transmission. It should drive the r rate down

PCR tests in Liverpool were offered to everyone.

If they were only offered to confirm those with symptoms the % wouldn’t be so low ....

They are still carrying out regular PCR tests for those with symptoms in Liverpool of course.
This is a trial, hopefully it proves successful.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:35 pm

They are still carrying out regular PCR tests for those with symptoms in Liverpool of course.
This is a trial, hopefully it proves successful.

Even with regular PCR tests it’s less than 3% positive that’s a lot of non covid “symptoms “

The test could very successfully show a problem with the PCR test that needs fixing, of course it won’t.

JPNZ wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:07 pm Really feel for the UK posters who look like they will be having a lockdown Christmas this year. That Dec 2nd date will surely be extended on current numbers.

Prof Gabriel Scally, a visiting professor of public health of the University of Bristol and a member of the Independent Sage group of experts, said he had little hope that the latest lockdown will quash the spread of the virus, given the spring lockdown had little effect in reducing infection levels in some parts of England.

“We know that the [last] and even more severe lockdown did not get the virus under control, so how can we expect that this will bring the virus under control given that some things have not changed?” he argued.

“How can we be in a good place by Christmas? I think it is impossible,”

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:00 pm

JPNZ wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:07 pm Really feel for the UK posters who look like they will be having a lockdown Christmas this year. That Dec 2nd date will surely be extended on current numbers.

Prof Gabriel Scally, a visiting professor of public health of the University of Bristol and a member of the Independent Sage group of experts, said he had little hope that the latest lockdown will quash the spread of the virus, given the spring lockdown had little effect in reducing infection levels in some parts of England.

“We know that the [last] and even more severe lockdown did not get the virus under control, so how can we expect that this will bring the virus under control given that some things have not changed?” he argued.

“How can we be in a good place by Christmas? I think it is impossible,”

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:57 am #DailyCovidUpdate | 17th November 2020

Cases: +20,051- and before he states cases have gone down and we should all rejoice. Last 7 days, +17,061 (+10.7%)
Deaths: +598, up from 532 last week - Last 7 days 2,975 +455 (18.1%)

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:51 am

JPNZ wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:07 pm Really feel for the UK posters who look like they will be having a lockdown Christmas this year. That Dec 2nd date will surely be extended on current numbers.

Prof Gabriel Scally, a visiting professor of public health of the University of Bristol and a member of the Independent Sage group of experts, said he had little hope that the latest lockdown will quash the spread of the virus, given the spring lockdown had little effect in reducing infection levels in some parts of England.

“We know that the [last] and even more severe lockdown did not get the virus under control, so how can we expect that this will bring the virus under control given that some things have not changed?” he argued.

“How can we be in a good place by Christmas? I think it is impossible,”

For some of us, not having to see our extended families is a blessing...

Joyous big family Christmas gatherings have always struck me as very Hollywood.

Now I’d say run along , but you can’t at the moment can you due to Viral fatigue.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:48 am Just noticed this.

Now I’d say run along , but you can’t at the moment can you due to Viral fatigue.

Classy stuff Bimbo.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:22 am Even JHB says " levelled off/flatlined", not falling. What's his source ONS data?

because “cases” are falling and have been for a while.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:53 am Exponential rise ......

Nope.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:25 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:04 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:07 pm



Is there confidence that a wide enough variance of testing participants has been found? Old, young, fat, active, cross reactions with other drugs etc ?

More confidence in the researchers doing the testing than a thick twat on a rugby chat bored trying to suggest experienced medical researchers can't carry out robust medical trials or that those doing the peer reviews etc don't have a clue what they are doing! I think you are on the wrong site here mate .... where is it that Trump supporters chat about election fraud, 5G masts and microchips in the vaccines? I suggest you seek a mid season transfer to there.

I’ll be clear, only Saint can actually comment here and Bindi in the other bored otherwise you’re just another thick twat on the rugby bored.

No one has mentioned trump, 5g or microchips, that a rushed vaccine can have and cause concern is based on historical issues and natural concerns about the process.

The fact that masks are a placebo from governments is also not only valid but up until a few months ago the accepted science.

You do realise there’s been mistakes made with vaccines previously in the regard of them being rushed or poorly administered, that’s not a way out theory it’s a fact.

Now I’d say run along , but you can’t at the moment can you due to Viral fatigue.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:02 am

because “cases” are falling and have been for a while.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:53 am Exponential rise ......

Nope.

Someone's morning nap can't come soon enough.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:06 am ... but hey here you are after warning us of 4,000 deaths a day with a semantic.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:52 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:48 am Just noticed this.

Now I’d say run along , but you can’t at the moment can you due to Viral fatigue.

Classy stuff Bimbo.

Oh, I’m every cunt under the sun, but this you object to.